Search This Blog

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

The Khaybar Chant and the Gaza flotilla

In these days, the Israel Defense Force's fatal engagement with Islamists on the Marmara has been drawing intense criticism from far and wide.

However of particular interest to me was an Al-Jazeera report on the flotilla, showing interviews with an international collection of Muslim radicals on one of the boats.

The report, posted on YouTube, includes a scene of a group of Muslim men sitting around on board and cheerfully punching their fists in the air as they recite the popular Arabic chant (starts at O:57):

You have declared war against Allah and his prophet. Take lesson of Theo Van Gogh! Take lesson of the Jews of Khaybar! Take lessons from the examples that you can see! For you will pay with your blood!

Likewise, when Amrozi, the smiling Bali bomber, entered the courtroom
on August 7, 2003, the day of his sentencing, he invoked this same chant, crying out:

Jews, remember Khaybar. The armies of Muhammad are coming back to defeat you.

It is indeed good to remember Khaybar.

In my Quadrant article Remembering Khaybar, I described the significance of this reference to Muhammad's second victory over People of the Book (the first was the genocide of the Qurayza Jews in Medina) when the forces of Islam defeated the Jews living at the oasis of Khaybar, enslaving many and subjecting the rest to a dhimma pact of surrender. At Khaybar the first dhimmis were created, and institution of the dhimma was inaugurated, which came to determine the fate of millions of non-Muslims who have lived under Muslim rule.

15 comments:

You really are a piece of work. The aid convoy was not travelling to Gaza to murder Jews, and if there were these chants, they in no way represented the aims of the mission. You should remember that if some Palestinians chanted some things, many reports equally show Israeli Jews in Tel Aviv shouting "Death to the Arabs!". This kind of sentiment on both sides is to be expected in such a long-running, intractable conflict. Your writing is the kind of venomous propaganda I would expect only from the most fanatical, cold-blooded hater of Palestinians. We hear nothing here from you on the murder of the people on board. What is your opinion of this? From this blog post it is not difficult to work out that you believe they got what they deserved. This is a vile, hateful piece of propaganda.

Obvious this was a terrorist attack lined with the lies of extremist from America and Hamas. The only thing that should have happened differently is Israel should have used Uzi's instead of paintball guns. Unfortunately now extremist will go on the lame stream media a hock their lies and most will by it until the real evidence comes out, and it will. God Bless Israel and God forgive America.

The first comment above is a classic, a real doozy. 1) It vilifies me using disgusting language ('venomous', 'vile', 'hateful', 'fanatical', 'cold-blooded' 'hater') 2) It rejects facts ('IF there were these chants') 3) It is disconnected from reality — the men on the boat were not Palestinians, but Turks, and others of various nationalities. 4) It makes an unsubstantiated accusation ('murder').

My responses: First, I note again that the men on board the boat were, at least for the most part, not Palestinians. This was not a conflict between Jews and Palestinians. Second, I find the suggestion of Jews chanting 'Death to the Arabs' disgusting, and not something 'to be expected'. I would be grateful of a link to this news report. I note that the existence of conflict does NOT excuse incitement of hatred. Third, whether any of the men who lost their lives were murdered is something I do not know. What is clear from the videos of the event is that the men waiting on the boat were armed and ready with metal poles, knives, broken bottles, slingshots etc, waiting to attack the IDF boarders. Were the shootings justified in self-defense? I also don't know. Certainly, judging from the videos the soldiers' lives were in danger. Men who attack armed soldiers with lethal force must expect a lethal response. The people on board the boat had been warned to turn back, and they were offered the opportunity to have their aid shipped by land to Gaza. They refused this offer. One must assume that their intent was for a violent confrontation. Their earlier war chant is consistent with this intent.

I am deeply concerned for the Palestinians. Their plight is very very distressing. But those who call the truth 'hateful', indeed who hate the truth with such a vengeance, as this commentator does, suffer a profound sickness of the soul.

It's true that this convoy wasn't going to Gaza to murder Jews. I smell publicity stunt people. This single ship was set as a trap for the Israel into which they blindly fell. Information will be released that the IDF had intelligence about arms being smuggled on this particular ship (none were found). That admission by the IDF will allow the terrorists to plug their intelligence leaks. This is a typical action/counter-action and I can't believe the IDF fell for it.

Dr. Durie is disturbed enough by the first post to state that the writer suffers a "profound sickness of the soul", but is silent on the statement of the second poster: "Israel should have used Uzi's instead of paintball guns." Enough said.

I wonder why every time a finger is pointed to the wrongdoing of Muslims, the answer will have to point out or make up the wrongdoings of others, and often offers accusations to the one who brought up the wrongdoings. Islam did not teach its followers the principles of accountability, accordingly they find it hard to admit to their own mistakes and they keep on doing the wrong with their heads up!

Peace activists do not associate themselves with war cries! Yet Muslims will find no controversy in a peace activists calling for the killing of others.

Hi,Your poster above (Colonel Robert Neville) says that Sydney Morning Herald journalist Paul McGeough is an anti-semite. That’s a pretty strong accusation, and I am surprised you didn't say anything to respond to such a claim. What's your take on this? Is Paul McGeough an anti-Semite?

In response to 'Anonymous'. (Or should I say 'Welcome back?') I have deleted that post by Colonel Robert Neville. Slander is unacceptable. I do not know Paul McGeough, and have not studied his track record on this issue. I have no view about whether he is, or is not, an anti-semite.

The issue of international waters is quite irrelevant, because the laws of war as they apply to naval blockades do not rely on this distinction. The right claimed by Israel to blockade Gaza (because it is at war with Gaza) does not depend upon whether the intercepted boats are in international waters or not. For example Great Britain blockaded Germany in WWII and it didn't have to wait for German boats to come into British waters to intercept them!